3 ms·

Wasn't there a McCain-Feingold rule which made free upgrades illegal that entangled Apple in the past? Edit: Sarbanes-Oxley, not McCain-Feingold. I had forgot

• masklinn 13y ago
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6593993 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6593993 > No. FASB changes revenue recognition principles in 2010 to allow this type of update.
• publicfig 13y ago
  I think you may be thinking of the Sarbanes–Oxley Act, which is what Apple cited for charging for some upgrades in the past (that and GAAP)[1]. If I remember correctly, things have changed on that level now, though I don't know if it's through legislation or through a reform of accounting practices [1]http://appleinsider.com/article/?id=2419 http://appleinsider.com/article/?id=2419
  • deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
• crbnw00ts 13y ago
  Not any more. The rules were changed / clarified a few years ago: http://www.inc.com/guides/2010/11/how-to-comply-with-new-revenue-recognition-rules.html http://www.inc.com/guides/2010/11/how-to-comply-with-new-rev... Apple mentions their adoption of the rules in this press release (scroll down to "Retrospective Adoption of Amended Accounting Standards"): http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2010/01/25Apple-Reports-First-Quarter-Results.html http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2010/01/25Apple-Reports-Firs... That is how they've been able to give customers free iOS upgrades all this time without having to defer any revenue from the original sale of the hardware. They are apparently now applying the same practices to OS X software.